Archive through June 22, 2006 Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through August 12, 2006 » Archive through June 29, 2006 » Dems need to nail GOP re Iraq » Archive through June 22, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cheetah
Citizen
Username: Cheetah

Post Number: 75
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 4:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Both Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum discuss the need for the Dems to come together and decide on a plan for Iraq.

Yes, I believe the Dems need to craft a unified message and proposed resolution re Iraq. However, they need not take the same crap again from the GOP! A memo was recently leaked revealing that the Republicans plan to go to the well again and use the tactics that worked for them in '04: paint the Dems as weak on terrorism, not supportive of the troops, and quitters when it comes to Iraq. In other words, Swift Boat them on Iraq. Karl Rove is obviously still alive and well within the party machine.

In response, what the Dems need to do is forcefully and convincingly illustrate that Iraq is a mess and a complicated quagmire. But even more so, they need to state in brutally explicit terms that it's a Republican debacle, made possible by a Republican administration that lied and distorted intel to get the votes needed in Congress to invade Iraq. (If you still don't realize that the intel shown to Congress was not the same as that which the administration possessed, click here). There has been ample proof showing the administration twisted intel to fit the desired policy (Downing Street memos, Richard Clarke, Colin Powell quotes, to name a few).

Voters should hold the guilty party accountable by tossing them out. Yes, again, Iraq must be dealt with and like the federal budget, the environment, international relations, and so many other things that are currently broken and need fixing, the Dems will have to eventually be the party of repair. Like a huge forest fire set by an arson, the fire eventually is extinguished but the arson must pay dearly and be brought to justice. The Republican apparatus set this fire we know as Iraq and they did so purposefully via the use of manipulative, deceptive, and treasonous tactics.

The Dems need to assert this message clearly and strongly. An appeal must be made to the voters' sense of justice, and what is fundamentally right and wrong. To elect or re-elect Republicans is to reward their misdeeds. America has a long tradition of punishing those who commit wrongful acts and the truly patriotic thing to do is to kick these bums out who are members of a group (party) that would perpetrate and silently support (and not investigate) such heinous acts.

Dems should've done better in '04, but if they do poorly this time around, they're lost.

http://theangryliberal.blogspot.com/

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 7:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cheetah, cheetah, cheetah,

"America has a long tradition of punishing those who commit wrongful acts"

Are you joking or that naive. The Dems ran Congress as corrupt and heavy handed as they possibly could for 40plus years and were rewarded time and time again. The American people have a long tradition of voting for those espousing similar views as themselves. That view is no longer the Democratic view which is why you are no longer in power. It's not very difficult to understand. You libs make fun of fly over country at every opportunity and then you expect them to vote with you. What a nicely flawed strategy. Your post is accurate that the Dems need a plan but that won't happen. The Dems are bureaucratically incapable of getting their little factions together on one page. I look forward to another 2 years of deep, intellectual, liberal discussions on bettering their party. The simple fact is the Democratic party no longer appeals to mass America. They are the party of the bicoastal upperclass and the freaks of our society. And I am loving it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 5734
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 9:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cheetah -- they have asserted the "blame Bush" theme forcefully and clearly, but it's not nearly enough. You rightfully call for Dems to be clear and loud on a solution to Iraq, but then you (and the Democratic Party) offer nothing but blame. To date, Dems have offered up full scale retreat (bring them home) or 'redeployment' which charitably is along the lines of "over the horizon.' Meaning, I suppose, that we pull the troops out to Kuwait and then send them back in when Al Qada and/or the insurgents overwhelm the growing but not-up-to-snuff Iraqi government security apparatus. In which case, you've pulled them out only to put them back in when the s--t starts to fly. Then, you have the argument that there aren't enough troops there and the answer to that is to.....take troops out. Your party is an absolute mess on this issue. Republicans are playing that up as well they should, not only in political ways but because it's damn important as an issue. On something like this, voters won't just toss out one party without knowing what the solution the other party is offering. It's not like education or tax policy in relation to the economy. It's life, death and national security.

At the very least you could say you think the war was misbegotten (yet again), but we're there and have to finish it. Then you could come up with some plan -- redeploy or add troops or whatever -- and say along the lines of 'finishing it' that the Democrats are actually calling for victory (not there's a concept!). But you can't. And the reason you can't is because the leftist base won't stand for that.

You're screwed on this issue. You can't call for victory, and giving up won't sell. The only thing Democrats offer the remotely approaches strength is increased VA funding and that just won't cut it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 5121
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 10:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You guys keep saying, "it's not working, it's not working." But Bush's approval ratings are in the high twenties/low thirties; A large majority want the Republicans not in charge in congress; heavily Republican districts are on the verge of electing Democrats; and the Republican agenda is stalled, and sinking. You're reduced to "debates" about the really, really important things having to do with "life, death and national security."

That's right; gay marriage and flag burning.

Now really, top spinning. Of course it's working.

If it's not working, how come the Republicans, with all three branches of government, can't get anything done? If this is what not working looks like, what would it look like if it were working.

And saying that the Dems are marginalized is just more spinning, another lie you hope that if you repeat it often enough it will be true. But over the last three election cycles, as more votes were cast for Democratic senatorial candidates than for Republicans. If more than half the voters are freaks, maybe you need to revisit the definition of the term. Corruption was enough in 1976 and in 1994; throw in competence and it can be enough now.

But seriously, gay marriage and flag burning...the life, death and national security issues of June 2006. I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes laughing about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1147
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 10:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

tom,
I agree the gay marriage and flag burning issues are just election issues. So what. It's election time. The Dems will pull out their version of the mean Repubs starving old people and letting babies die. It's the typcial election year issues. Why you are so upset is surprising. You are not a rookie to the political scene are you?

"heavily Republican districts are on the verge of electing Democrats" - lay off the crack. This is the Democrats wet dream they have been having since 1996. Where is the evidence that backs up this statement? Didn't a heavily Republican district in California just re-elect a Republican over a Democrat? I am glad, however, that many of you Dems believe your statement. It will be that much more enjoyable watching you come to grips with heavily Republican districts electing Republicans.

That statement is as politically inept as if I were to say heavily Democratic districts would vote Republican. It's a numbers game and we have the numbers. Boo Hoo for you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 5125
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 11:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Boo hoo"? Your desperation is showing. Republicans threw everything they had into that one California district, which should have been winnable by 30 points, to win it by 4.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry

Post Number: 7456
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 11:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Boo hoo"? Your desperation is showing. Republicans threw everything they had into that one California district,"

Tom forgets who the majority party is..

oh, regarding that district. The Dems should have steam rolled thanks to Duke. They didn't. They never do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 5126
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 11:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ah, playing the "expectations" game. More spin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Supporter
Username: Anon

Post Number: 2791
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 2:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why does everyone in the Democratic Party have to have the same opinion on Iraq anymore than on any other subject. An American political party is a "big tent". It is not a totalitarian party where the leader announces a policy and everyone falls in line.

Every Republican does not have the same position on Iraq but because the President is a Republican they will tend to support him out of loyalty.

On something as important as War each politician's position should be exactly what he or she believes. If Kerry and Clinton disagree with each other or McCain and Hagel disagree with each other, so what?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 2054
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 3:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Next proposed amendment to the Constitution by the current fundamentalist wicker basket makers is:

Establishment of the Left Behind series as the only books on which to swear in public officials, with a forward and an imprimatur by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 1730
Registered: 10-2005


Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A memo was recently leaked revealing that the Republicans plan to go to the well again and use the tactics that worked for them in '04: paint the Dems as weak on terrorism, not supportive of the troops, and quitters when it comes to Iraq.

wait, so you are saying they are not? Could of fooled me...

-SLK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers

Post Number: 6559
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't wait til they get the bugs out of S.L.K. 2.0 and fix it. right now it is crashing every time it posts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1148
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

tom,
Let's wait and see then. You must have some hard data you are not sharing that shows the Dems will win "heavy" Republican Districts as you earlier stated. I'm not going to convince you that you are wrong and you sure aren't convincing me. Let's simply be patient and wait for the results. That is what I love about politics. Unlike college football where there is no playoff, all the talk and bluster (by both sides) about politics and the electorate will reveal itself either to be true or false based on the results. That is why I enjoy politics. Every election, one side is proven right and the other side is proven wrong.

For all the talk from the Dems in 2004 about taking back Congress and beating the worst President in history proved to be completely false which is why I am highly skeptical of your position. Please keep in mind I am not talking about your philosophy of government. We can have that discussion another time. I am referring to your observation that there are many "heavy" Republican districts that will be lost to the Dems.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Supporter
Username: Themp

Post Number: 3017
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 4:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Supporter
Username: Themp

Post Number: 3020
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 4:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 2056
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 5:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The question is:

Is the AntiChrist now serving as President of the United States, or is the AntiChrist now serving as VP or SECDEF?

That would shock the "Left Behind"-ers.

Maybe the Judas Goat is now serving in one, or all, of those three posts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Supporter
Username: Anon

Post Number: 2800
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is why I enjoy politics. Every election, one side is proven right and the other side is proven wrong.

That's not necessarily so. Each side can "spin" the results.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

anon,
You are wrong. They may try to "spin" the results but thankfully the results in politics are clear and unspinnable. Each election has only one winner. The latest example, of course is the Kerry/Bush election. Bush won. While the Kerry supporters (you are probably one) have been trying to spin it for a year and a half, the results are clear. Kerry is not President. Is he a better man? Would he be a better President? All these type of questions are, of course, debateable, but the election results are not debateable. Keep in mind, the Kerry/Bush election is just one example. I could easily flip the political sides and use the Bush/Clinton election. No matter how bad, myself and my fellow Repubs felt Clinton was the wrong choice, the results were clear and I accepted them. Clinton won and Bush lost.

My point with tom was over his statement that Dems are poised to take many seats in "heavily" Republican districts. I think that statement is wrong and we will see when the results come in. I do think the Dems are poised to take some seats in "lightly" Republican districts but tom added the term "heavily" not me. As things stand now, I don't see the Dems picking up many seats at all let alone taking over the House or Senate. I see a lackluster voter turnout this November which typically helps the Repubs because it is usually the inner city and urban areas that stay home. As I stated in another thread, rural America likes to vote because it is a social event. Unlike you city folk who don't have a minute to spare in your daily routine, the rest of us like taking an hour, heading down to the local school or church and seeing some friends and voting. And this usually leads to Republicans winning. The bottom line is one party will control the Senate and one party will control the House. I believe the Republicans will control both after these elections and I don't care by how many seats. If the Dems pick up seats yet don't control either chamber then they can try and spin all they want while I'm watching Repubs control each and every committee. And I love Stevens.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 5133
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually I said Democrats are "on the verge" of winning heavily Republican districts. It means what it means.

Like that, your won/loss thing is so banal as to be meaningless. I mean, who "won" in 2000? To say Bush "won" is to make such an obvious statement as to hardly be worth the oxygen, considering the gross oversimplification it represents. And 2004 was only a little better. If you can say Bush "won" 2000 the same way you would say Reagan "won" 1984, then you are saying nothing at all of any interest beyond basic bookkeeping.

So if your only concern is what goes in the won/loss column, without a care for the public policy that arises from it, then why discuss it at all? Go to sleep, wake up the first Wednesday after the first Monday of November and fill in your scorecard. Most of us up here are interested in what actually happens to the country in between elections.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 7:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

tom,
YOu say that when I make obvious statements that I am saying nothing at all of any interest. Well, then please tell me what "Democrats on the verge" means? You could make that statement about any candidate on any ballot. What is so intriguing and interesting about your posts other than they offer nothing more than platitudes, and I love how you give yourself an out when your "on the verge" doesn't come true ("I said on the verge, not that they will actually do it"). I agree with you that my posts are simple. Politics is a fairly simple animal. You have two sides in most elections and only one winner. How much more simple can you get.

As for your sophomoric statement that somehow because the side you support continues to lose that you are more interested in what actually happens to the country in between elections is laughable. I would say the Republicans care a whole lot more what happens to this country in between elections because we work harder and have better ideas that enable us to actually win and set policy. If the Dems cared so much more they would get off their lazy backsides and campaign, but instead they want victories and power handed to them. I say the Dems don't really care at all which is why they are so lethargic during election season. And yes, I will fill out my scorecard in November so that my team can continue to set the political landscape for the next two years while you can continue to claim how much better your side is even though the electorate routinely rejects you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit

Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2006


Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 1:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Southerner says:

"I would say the Republicans care a whole lot more what happens to this country in between elections because we work harder and have better ideas that enable us to actually win and set policy. If the Dems cared so much more they would get off their lazy backsides and campaign, but instead they want victories and power handed to them. I say the Dems don't really care at all which is why they are so lethargic during election season."

Nothing remotely factual there.

I'll admit to getting pretty angry sometimes, and even calling someone a name, like a knee-jerk simpleton (sorry ajc) but hate and smear is all you guys got. Oh, yeah, and rigging elections. I can say some nasty things too, but I can make a case. There is so much veiled hatred and slander in that comment that it speaks for itself. Typical of the Ann Coulter Republicans.
Southerner, if you did move somewhere down south, why don't you just keep it down there?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry

Post Number: 7460
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 1:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

boring
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave


Post Number: 9920
Registered: 4-1997


Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 2:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2006/06/61906_connote_d.html


Quote:

Our ability to live in denial and hide from facts in front of our faces is obvious. I am thinking that it must have evolved out of a survival mechanism — some mental ability that helps one focus on the hunt, on courtship, on our children and on other ancient behaviors that are essential and absolutely necessary…necessary at the time that they are needed.

The fact that demagogues, advertisers, marketing experts and religious leaders have learned to tap into these powerful instincts is unfortunate, but maybe inevitable. In fact, since it is natural that we have these abilities, maybe it is also natural that they will be exploited and that some will become skilled at this exploitation.

However, as powerful and irresistible as these buzzwords are, it is possible to resist them and be aware when they are being employed — employed for better or worse. And then to make a decision whether one wants to be manipulated or self-deluded, or not. There are times when a certain amount of self delusion is “good”, when it allows us to accomplish a necessary task, create something unlikely or new, or even speak out — and in those cases it might be deemed worthy.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 5:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AE,
I guess you fall into that camp then. The proof is in the pudding. The Republicans are always painted as the unfeeling party while the Dems get away with being labeled the compassionate, caring party. Let me ask you a question then. How many of the Democratic/liberal policies have been enacted or even pushed in the past decade? The answer is none because you libs don't care enough to take elections seriously. If your party did care they wouldn't continually allow guys like Schrum to run your biggest campaigns. Your party also wouldn't keep running on losing arguments. You may not like the truth and can call me names all you want, but I am not afraid to speak the truth. The Democratic Party has become a very lazy lot. You guys are happy to have your urban fiefdoms but don't want to do the work to make other gains. This will continue to make you lose in Congressional races. Why you Dems aren't out campaigning today is beyond me and why you can't get a theme or message out to the public is a terrible political strategy.

And lastly, I don't hate anyone. I want a viable strong Democratic Party. A strong two party or three party system would be great for this country. I wish you Dems would get on the ball and work hard and come up with new ideas. Don't be angry with me because your party is in disarray. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and let the Repubs whip you again. I'm not 100% happy with the Repubs either but at least they get things done where as the Dems want things done but aren't willing to put in the work.

Here is a suggestion. The next time you libs want to have a peace march or rally, why not hold it in a Republican area? Why you hold all your rallys and marches in die hard liberal districts like New Jersey or New York is beyond me. You could probably change some votes in your direction if you did this, but again, the Democrats take the easy way out of every situation. Why travel to Republican Districts in other states when you can hold a rally in Central Park, have some Starbucks, and then after you lose the election call the people who never heard of you names, all because your Democratic Party is to lazy or inept to get their message out.

Where is Dean. I haven't seen one news story or one newspaper article about him pushing the Democratic agenda in red America. Where is this guy? Is he really going to take back Congress by never leaving the northeast?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart

Post Number: 3562
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 6:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry to change the subject a bit, but in case you didn't notice, the vote was 376 to 50 in the House of Representatives just now AGAINST PERMANENT MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ.


Could the times be a-changin'?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit

Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2006


Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 8:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Southerner,

You sound sensible and reasonable. Here's my problem with what you have to say. Your party's number one weapon is the lie. Your never elected president started a war mainly to profiteer for his "base". He allowed the greatest foreign act of war to happen on his watch and then used and uses American troops as cannon fodder and political pawns. His advisor Karl Rove put out a memo over the weekend to politicize the occupation of Iraq by starting every comment from on the record Republican's with a reference to 9/11 and ending it with Saddam Hussein. Pathetic. Republicans = failed Americans. All you can do now is get through the next election, by any means necessary. The president said he will leave Iraq to the next president. He has no plan. The Republicans have no plan. They confuse and conflate 9/11 with Iraq and stir the anger of good Americans by smearing guys who actually went to Vietnam, unlike themselves. Name one thing the Republicans stand for that isn't a lie or isn't failed already. When this country was founded, rich men with something to lose put their lives and fortunes on the line. They fought for democracy among other things, and I'm with them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1155
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AE,
I like you too. This isn't a personal battle between us but rather a battle for the direction of this country. If you believe your first few sentences in your previous post then I absolutely believe you should do everything in your power to throw these guys out of office. As a good political person and liberal you should try and do this. However, I will stand opposed to you and fight even harder for the other side because I believe you are completely wrong. It's not very complicated. We have different political views. Where you see lies, I see the truth, and where you see the truth I see lies. Let's see who comes out on top after the American people have their say.

Of course, if your side wins, I will say good battle and congrats. If my side wins, you simply say it was rigged and stolen, and/or the American people are stupid. Whichever excuse you use will only make me chuckle. It doesn't upset me in the least because I know this line of reasoning by you and many Democrats will keep you from really analyzing and fixing your internal party problems. That is why I am growing ever more confident that Congress will stay in Republican hands. Because the Dems have yet to reach the point of looking in the mirror. Hey, it took the Repubs 40 some years to finally do this so I can understand why it will take the Dems longer than 10 years. Like I stated earlier, the Democrats are far too lazy to actually fix what is broken within their own ranks. It's much easier to simply spout about rigged elections and unelected Presidents. Eventually, after enough losses, you guys will do this and come out with a coherent plan. I don't see it in 2006 or 2008 however.

Of course, I will be laughing even harder when the Dems pick up a few seats and many of the usual liberal posters begin celebrating on this board. That will be some scene - liberals celebrating that after a national election the Republicans control the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Oh, how the mighty have fallen and expectations have become so low.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11

Post Number: 944
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Where is Dean. I haven't seen one news story or one newspaper article about him pushing the Democratic agenda in red America. Where is this guy? Is he really going to take back Congress by never leaving the northeast?

Surprise! Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's not happening:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner

Post Number: 1160
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 5:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Madden,
I applaud the Dems for coming up with this type of strategy. However, it needs to be more than words on paper. I am just telling you that as a guy living in the deep, bible belt south that the Dems have advanced nothing since the last election. It is just a cadid observation. The Republicans haven't either, but they don't need to. The electorate will continue to vote Republican (like they did Democratic for decades) unless the opposition makes a strong showing and presents a strong message. Heck, I want the Democratic Party to be strong and be viable. But if you nice northeast libs are counting on a nice 50 State Plan on paper to pull you through without doing the leg work then you will be, once again, shocked and dismayed. Currently in Georgia the only real politically interesting action is between the two Democratic candidates for Governor. These two are killing each other with accusations flying all over the place. And all this is doing is hurting the Democratic Party as a whole. Meanwhile the Republican Governor isn't spending a dime and is enjoying these two tearing each other up. Where is Dean to calm this down. I guarantee some incumbent Dems are nervous down here even with the 50 State Plan on paper.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11

Post Number: 948
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 8:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Check the other thread...it's a bit more than "paper." Pretty weak strawman nonetheless...I guess you wanted me to post video of Dean personally visiting Republicans in their homes and convincing them to switch? It may surprise you to learn that many plans start out "on paper."

The Republicans have had a stranglehold on the South since the 60s...it's going to take more than 2 years for Dems to wrestle it back. But they will...because they don't have to disguise their agenda, and Republicans do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Supporter
Username: Anon

Post Number: 2807
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Southerner: I could not complete my post of Monday evening because I was called away. You did not say that one side wins and one side loses, you said "one side is proven right and the other side is proven wrong." This is only true if you are talking about predictions and saying that some predictions prove accurate and some do not. But in the bigger concept of "right and wrong" elections don't prove anything.

As to spin, I was thinking of the recent special election for a Congressional seat in California. The Republican clearly "won", getting more votes than the Dem. The GOP spin, as even set forth on MOL by Straw, was that the DEMS couldn't win even though the ousted GOP incumbent was a crook. The DEM spin was that it was a heavily Republican District, the incumbent was not running, the GOP candidate was an experienced politician, the Dem was a novice and the GOP candidate while winning didn't break 50% and the race was close. That's what I mean by spin.

If the DEMS win the House in November by a small number, the GOP spinmeisters (not you, but the pros) will say that the fact the DEMS did not win by a landslide meanes that they lost. If the DEMS were smart they would be saying that the deck is so stacked and incumbents have such an advantage that it's impossible for them to win more than two or three seats. Then if they win even half a dozen they can claim victory.

You say wait until the election to see the results. I say that whatever the results are, unless they are completely one-sided like the DEMS winning over 50 GOP seats, or the REPUBS actually picking up seats, both sides will claim victory!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 5744
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Madden -- it's precisely the democrats who have to disguise their agenda, or mouth platitudes like 'fairness' to have a chance with voters. Democrats can't call for retreat in Iraq. They call it redeployment instead. They can't call for tax hikes. They can't call for single-payer healthcare, abortion on demand, felon voting rights, gay marriage (if they really do believe in that as many think they're just winking when they say they're against it) or amnesty for illegal immigrants. If they do, they lose.

Democrats haven't had a new idea in 30 years. An article I believe in the DC Post recently was looking at all the think-journals the Left is unveiling precisely because when voters listed accomplishments for Democrats they were all 30 years old at least. The people behind these journals admit that Democrats aren't in the arena of ideas. They're rightfully afraid to enunciate what they're really for and can only fall back on old programs that have lost their lustre in one way or another.

You just have to hope and pray things go miserably for the country to pull out a victory. And people see that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11

Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2006


Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All wars throughout history have been fraught by difficult decisions, made with less than perfect, sometimes poor, information, and frequently under rapidly evolving circumstances. Sometimes they have been the wrong decisions and even when they were the right ones, it was rarely evident at the outset. History will judge the wisdom of invading Iraq. History will judge if it was the best course of action to take in the war against terrorism, whether it was ultimately successful, and whether it was another front in the war begun on September 11, or some would argue much earlier.

This much is certain, our armed forces and our allies are currently engaged in a battle against terrorist forces that we cannot lose and they deserve the support of American the people. They do not deserve to be compared to Nazis or to be told that their efforts are doomed to failure and therefore their sacrifices are for nothing. They do not deserve to have their reelected commander-in-chief accused of being a war criminal or compared to Hitler. They do not deserve to have the legislators who voted to send them to war and finance the action now turn their backs on them and claim that they were somehow tricked into agreeing to the invasion by a duplicitous president. They do not deserve to see 5th Columnists marching in the street carrying signs calling them murderers or claiming the war was launched for the benefit of Halliburton. To engage in such rhetoric and simultaneously claim to support the troops is absurd.

This is particularly true considering the asymmetrical war we are fighting. The center of gravity is a concept developed by the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. The definition of center of gravity according to the Department of Defense is "those characteristics, capabilities, or locations from which a military force derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight." The center of gravity varies from conflict to conflict and from nation to nation.

In the 1960’s America’s enemies discovered that the U.S. center of gravity was not our military in the field which could not be defeated, or our cities or infrastructure which were out of reach, and not our capital which could never be invaded. They discovered that America’s center of gravity was public opinion at home. It was through the use of purported liberals in America that our enemies could change public opinion and achieve a victory that they could never dream of achieving against our armed forces on the battlefield.

Don’t take my word for it. In a 1995 Wall Street Journal interview, former North Vietnamese Army Colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam in 1975 said that the American Anti-War movement “…. was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.” He further stated that “Tet was designed to influence American public opinion…… Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election.” Other former Vietnamese leaders have admitted that when Cronkite stated in the wake of Tet that the war could not be won, they were completely incredulous.

The enemy in Iraq knows they cannot defeat our military in the field. Every bomb, IED, and suicide bomber’s real target is American public opinion. While appearing fierce, the masked terrorists toting AK-47s and RPGs would be slaughtered by the hundreds in a matter of minutes by a 40-man platoon of Marine or army infantry if they ever met them in open combat. This is why with rare exception their tactics are limited to terrorist operations against soft targets. Every time the so-called peace movement has a protest, every time the president is attacked and called a liar, when our leaders say that Iraq was a mistake or that we can’t win, our enemy is encouraged and emboldened. I personally believe that they sit around their safe houses and caves and are told by their leaders that all they have to do is hang on a little longer, blow up a few more people, cut off a few more heads, and America will go running for cover just as we did in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.

That is not to say that legitimate criticism cannot be made of our efforts because constant self-critique is one of the hallmarks of our culture and paradoxically is one of the reasons that the U.S. in particular, and Western Civilization in general, has always fielded such singularly deadly military forces. It is in part because of constant reassessment, analysis, and adjustment, that Western armies throughout history were able to overcome disasters and always defeat our less liberal adversaries.

However, when legitimate, sober, historically, and strategically, based criticism crosses the line into hysterical political grandstanding. When opposition comes from individuals or organizations that clearly believe that America is nothing but a corrupt, racist, cancer on the planet, responsible for every ill in the world. When the transparent goal becomes destroying a president and regaining power rather than winning a war, the people engaging in such actions cease “supporting the troops” and undermine the war effort and ally themselves with our enemies. In 1944 under pressure from the Right to attack FDR on Pearl Harbor and other errors made during WWII, Thomas Dewey famously refused stating that he would rather lose the election than undermine the president and run the risk of losing the war. Today, many members and leaders of the opposition party are vested in disaster and defeat in Iraq. To them, a successful President Bush and Republican Party are more intolerable then an American failure in Iraq and a strategic defeat which will negatively impact our nation for generations. This is why they advocate retreat, appeasement, and surrender, and why they dismiss any successes as trivial while trumpeting any setback.

As late at the Spring of 1941, with most of Europe and the Pacific under Axis domination, a large majority of the American public opposed involving ourselves in World War II. After Pear Harbor there were people who believed that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese attack in order to have a pretext for war or that we brought the attack on ourselves because of our embargo against Japan in response to their aggression in Asia. These same people also didn’t see any reason to go to Europe. After all, Germany hadn’t attacked the U.S. and after Germany was defeated by the UK in the Battle of Britain in 1940, Germany couldn’t project power across the English Channel let alone across the Atlantic. Furthermore, attacking Germany would mean aligning ourselves with the loathsome Stalin.

More reasonable people debated whether we should focus our efforts on the Japanese first then turn to Europe or fight a two front war. Once the decision was made to fight a two front war there were many who argued for an immediate cross-channel invasion into France instead of an invasion of North Africa. In February and March 1943, the first major engagements between German and American forces in North Africa resulted in 9,000 American casualties including 6,000 killed or wounded. With members of congress calling for his resignation, General Eisenhower was nearly relieved of command. Only General Marshal’s intervention with President Roosevelt saved him.

Engagement after engagement in World War II were strategic disasters. The invasion of Sicily, the assault on Salerno, Omaha Beach, the Hurtgen Forest, Iwo Jima, Okanawa, and many other battles were all fraught with gross miscalculations that resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary casualties. During the Battle of Bulge, one of the biggest intelligence failures in military history, the Germans assembled a force of 600,000 men, 600 tanks, and 1,900 artillery pieces right under the noses of the allies and launched the second largest ground attack of World War II at a time when many Americans believed that the war would be over by Christmas. The resulting catastrophe resulted in 81,000 allied casualties including 10,000 killed.

I use World War II as an example because it was an anomaly of U.S. Military History because it was the only war around which virtually the entire nation was united. In retrospect it now seems almost scripted but a careful examination tells a different story. Victory was far from certain right up until the very end in Europe (half of which was obviously left under totalitarian rule) and required the use of nuclear weapons to decisively defeat Japan, an invasion of which would have undoubtedly resulted in the greatest bloodbath in military history. Comparably, the rest of our wars, from the Revolution through the present were extremely divisive affairs.

In particular, the Civil War, during which the U.S. experienced one of the worst riots in our history in New York in 1863, completely divided the Union regarding the wisdom of pursing the war and the institution of a draft after 2 years of some of the most horrific carnage ever seen including Shiloh (2 days - 24,000 casualties), 2nd Bull Run (2 days - 25,000 casualties), Antietam (1 day – 26,000), Chancellorsville (4 days – 30,000), and of course Gettysburg (3 days – 51,000). Many of the casualty figures were avoidable and were due to disastrous strategic decisions on the part of wartime leaders. On several occasions, the Union came perilously close to losing the war. At Gettysburg, it could be argued that if not for the gallantry of Colonel Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine Regiment at Little Round Top on July 2, 1863, which conducted a bayonet charge when they ran out of ammunition, in all likelihood, the Army of Northern Virginia would have turned the Army of the Potomac’s left flank and driven them from the field. If that had happened President Lincoln might very well have been remembered as one of our most disastrous president rather than one of our greatest.

Widespread opposition to World War I prompted President Wilson to sign the Espionage and Sedition Acts. These acts are widely considered to be two of the most constitutionally odious acts ever passed in U.S. History. Compared to the threat we face today from international terrorists and the price of failure in Iraq, Imperial Germany was practically an ally of the U.S..

We have made extraordinary progress in the Terrorist War. We have disrupted and destroyed terrorist networks, eliminated two theocracies, have brought a third to heel, liberated millions, are witnessing the birth of freedom in a region which until recently has known only despotism, and for the first time have our enemies on the defense. Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of their populations on our side, continue their inexorable move towards liberalism, egalitarianism, and freedom, much to the anxiety of their neighbors. In historical context, our progress, imperfect as it is, and as far as we have to go, is unprecedented.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11

Post Number: 949
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Madden -- it's precisely the democrats who have to disguise their agenda, or mouth platitudes like 'fairness' to have a chance with voters. Democrats can't call for retreat in Iraq. They call it redeployment instead. They can't call for tax hikes. They can't call for single-payer healthcare, abortion on demand, felon voting rights, gay marriage (if they really do believe in that as many think they're just winking when they say they're against it) or amnesty for illegal immigrants. If they do, they lose.

I almost don't know where to start with this. First of all, fairness is not a platitude, though I understand why Republicans think it is. It's a basic American right. The idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you have a shot at the American dream. It means that you shouldn't be gouged by HMOs and oil companies, that your employer should have to pay you a living wage, and that if something bad happens to you, your whole life shouldn't go down the toilet. Republicans, on the other hand, love to root for all those things. They take joy in the misery of others, because it makes them feel better about themselves...it's all good, just so long as they get theirs, and by any means necessary. That's why they have to pretend to want to save social security when they really want to trash it, they have to pretend to be environmentally conscious while they loosen restrictions on big polluters, they have to pretend to be in favor of small government when they really want to tap your phones and control what you see on TV, they have to pretend to be humble and compassionate when they really want to wage wars of choice and stick anyone and everyone in the electric chair at the first opportunity (fair trials and sleeping lawyers be damned), and they have to pretend to be pious beyond measure when they really can't even name 3 out of the 10 commandments.

And meanwhile, on almost every other issue you mentioned, the Democratic position is the one favored by the majority of people in this country. I know you're used to hearing those soothing right wing talking points about what a bunch of kooky lefties we are, but try to join us here on planet Earth. Americans want the troops home as soon as possible, they want a return to fiscal sanity so their children don't have to slave to pay off the bills this administration is running up, they want universal health coverage, they want the right to control their own bodies (not just whether to have an abortion, but who will decide for them when it's time to pull the plug), and eventually they'll come around on gay marriage, as trends indicate increasing acceptance. As for "felon voting rights," I'm not sure what that's supposed to be code for...please cite some examples of Democrats fighting to get convicts the right to vote. Once you've done your time, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to vote, if those are the laws of the state you're living in. Republicans, of course, do not believe in second chances or redemption, except for how it may apply to George W. Bush.

The problem with the Democratic party is that they are unable to stand up proudly and fight for these values, for these basic needs and rights that poll after poll shows the majority of Americans favor. That general wishy-washyness combined with the right wing noise machine has been their undoing for the past 15 years or so. It is only through the miracle of Democrats campaign incompetence that there is even a Republican party left in America...your side is not just morally wrong on most issues, but you're on the wrong side of history, too, and way out of the mainstream. God help the GOP if the Democrat Party ever gets its act together.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops

Post Number: 1528
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Spinal Tap - that was a very nice little essay, full of nationalistic rhetoric that has fully distorted the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq because it does not address justification. The American people want to be justified in going to war. Today we know that Vietnam was unjustified. It was a war for imperialist reasons. A war for resources. A war to support corporations. Not a war of justification by any means. The suffering of the people of America for corporate interests could not be sustained. Therefore there became a great uproar from the people who demanded that this unjust, tragic and fully unnecessary war be ended.

Iraq has many similarities with Vietnam in that we are plunged into a war against an enemy that did not attack us and was not a threat to our security. We are not welcomed in Iraq and the civilian people are the ones who are resisting our occupation. We have destroyed their economy, brought in outside corporations to 'rebuild' and are using outside labor leaving the Iraqi people destitute and struggling. While we build our giant embassy and our huge military bases we have not restored power or water and every day activities in this desert region are difficult to say the least for these intelligent, educated and proud people. Our troops are up against a sea of people who hate their presence and who would gladly help in any way they can to get us out of there. We have implemented policies that make it impossible for the Iraqi people to share in the profits of their resources.

This is not about a propaganda war. This is about a corrupt American administration lying to the people in order to bring about their own secret vision of the world. The disaster is still in the making but already the consequences have been great for our country.

Your essay is a load of horse crap.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows

Post Number: 1756
Registered: 10-2005


Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hoops-

"Your essay is a load of horse crap."

Great attitude, Hoops. Obviously ST has put alot of time and thought into his post in a non-provacative (sp?) manner and this is your final response? How shanty (as us irish like to call low-class) can you be? The day one of your (even my) post equals that one of Spinal Taps is the day I eat my hat.

This is about a corrupt American administration lying to the people in order to bring about their own secret vision of the world.

How much crack do you smoke, boy? Paranoid talk. Three independent committees absolved the Bush Administration of any lying about Iraq but you still keep crooning that old number...Maybe you should stop listening to Al Franken (a man, according to you, destined to be a great Senator but can't even keep a radio station afloat)so much.

Hoops-a left wing hack for all occassions...spit...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 5142
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Three independent committees?? Who? When?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops

Post Number: 1530
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Crap is crap SLK. I dont care how many words are in the Essay, its still revisionist and incorrect. His viewpoint is jingoistic. His conclusions are nonsense.

If what I say is not true then tell me why the administration refuses to say why we are really in Iraq, why we insisted on rules governing Iraq which state that no contractor can be charged for any crimes against the Iraqi people, why our money is being spent on huge military bases and an immense embassy (far bigger then any of Saddams palaces)?

you think AAR is not doing well? I bet they are doing just fine, try dialing in there are listen to some facts instead of the talking points that Rush puts out and you might get a better perspective on the world.

and SLK - I think that the most elementary poster here on MOL can beat anyone of your posts anyday. Including Strawberry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 5148
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Spinal Tap's essay seems to mirror a recent Tony Snow statement implying that if somehow public opinion was known during WWII we might have seen the same kind of coverage, and pressure on Roosevelt, as we do now on Bush. According to a recent item on TPM, Roosevelt had frequent polls taken, and public support was indeed high all along.

The key factors seemed to be a clear mission, a forseeable end, and progress. It's an interesting read.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction

Post Number: 740
Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 12:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So if I understand democrat MOL posts accurately :

If the USA is winning in Iraq, it is losing.

If the USA is losing in Iraq ,it is losing.

hmmm... sounds like a clear policy position to me.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration